Recommended Posts

DOES ANYONE HAVE A PDF TO SHARE OF THE TRACT FROM 1946 ENTITLED "QUEBEC'S BURNING HATE FOR GOD AND CHRIST AND FREEDOM IS THE SHAME OF ALL CANADA". THANKS.

Share this post


Link to post

If it does not work you can purchase a reproduction of it on ebay at only $9.99 with free shipping on archaic paper to look like the original. I like it much better than printing out a pdf on regualr paper as this one looks like the original and not a copy. However if you do not care about looks and just want to read the material then pdf is the way to go.

Find it here 

    Hello guest!

Share this post


Link to post

I wondered what was all the fuss about this tract. Then I went to the Thursday meeting.

As to the question "What effect did the [Canadian Supreme Court] victory have on our brothers and sisters?' I replied that the jury is still out. It isn't for Canada, but it is for Russia. How comes it that this Quebec case is presented to congregations worldwide as the Russian Supreme Court is to hear our appeal? @JW Insider will know the lead time on this article, but I would be surprised if it is under two years, one at most.

Their certainly are a lot of parallels, and perhaps the Russian Court will be instructed by the Canadian Court of long ago. Perhaps it will be moved by "the Court agreed with the argument presented by the defense that "sedition" requires incitement to violence or insurrection against government. The tract, however, 'contained no such incitements and was therefore a lawful form of free speech.'" The tract in question, Quebec's Burning Hate, was considerably hotter than anything Russia has been asked to deal with.

You can be sure all is being done that can be done to ensure that relevant Russian officials are aware of this. Perhaps they will empathize, or perhaps they will be chastened by, the "trial court judge, who hated Witnesses, refused to admit evidence that proved the Bouchers' innocence." The Russian court, too, refused to admit evidence proving innocence, most notably that of police planting the 'extremist' literature that they would later 'find' and used as a pretext of arrest. 

Russia is not Canada. It cannot be shamed for denying free speech. It has not the reverence for free speech as do Western countries. There is a tendency to think that if the actual trial was a perfunctory sham, surely the appeal will be, too. But it may not be that way. The internet may prove powerful. The evidence that the Russian Court refused to see WAS seen by everyone else in the whole wide world thanks to jw.org, and this has to register. Of course, I exaggerate. It wasn't everyone. Far from it. But among legal type people and scholar type people, human-rights type people, and many a political figure, it likely was universal. The only ones who had a moral responsibility to see it are the ones who refused to see it. Surely they are embarrassed as this is brought to their attention. 

What will their response be?

 

Share this post


Link to post

I WAS FURIOUS AFTER THE MEETING THURSDAY AND I HANDED IN MY RESIGNATION!!! JTR HAS BEEN RIGHT ALL ALONG!!!!! HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SUCH A FOOL??????

THE BROTHERS TAKING THE LEAD ARE INCOMPETENT LIARS!! THEY ARE IMPOSTERS!!! THEY CARE NOTHING FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE!!! THEY LAUGH AT THEIR WOES!!!

FROM THE 'KINGDOM RULES' BOOK: "ON THAT MEMORABLE DAY IN 1943, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES WON 12 OF THEIR 13 CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT!!!!!" [!!!!! MINE]

IF THEY WEREN'T SUCH JERKS, THEY WOULD HAVE WON ALL 13!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

(What is the one they lost? I'll bet even @JW Insider, who knows a lot, doesn't know this one.)

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Not a clue.

I suggested a mom who homeschools her two teenage kids assign them this one, and suggested it would not be easy - they would likely have to go to Supreme Court records. She replied that her boy would be enthralled and dive right into it, but her daughter would say ... this is too much....'if it was important, it would be in the book.' (the girl grinned when this was brought to her attention)

I'm with both. There are some things that I dig into with relish. And there are some things about which I say: "who cares?"

The girl's anticipated answer reminded me of a brother, likely the dumbest person I ever met, as fleshly as a brother can be and still be a brother, who likely came into the truth simply to placate his wife, as course as he could be, but nonetheless loved by all for extreme generosity and unfailing good humor ....okay? ....got the picture?....cornered me when I was saying something zealous, with: (as if from Moses on high) "a man can only stand so much religion!"

As to the thirteenth case, how could anyone possibly know that one?

12 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

That'll be Douglas v. City of Jeannette 

    Hello guest!

 

It is as the Eagles sang: "There's a new kid in town." Eoin's star rises, mine continues to sink fast.

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is as the Eagles sang: "There's a new kid in town." Eoin's star rises, mine continues to sink fast.

Here's a redemption opportunity. Why did the book mention 12 out of 13 cases when only 4 decisions were handed down that day (apparently)?

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Welcome To Our Community

    The most intelligent people on planet Earth hang out on this forum. Be ready to have your points of view challenged and refined.

    You need to be registered and logged in to get full access and to add content yourself. 

     

  • Similar Content

    • By Srecko Sostar
      A group of alleged sexual abuse survivors from across the country have filed a $66-million class action lawsuit against the Jehovah’s Witness, CityNews has learned.
      The victims are seeking $20 million for damages from sexual and mental abuse by elders, $20 million for failing to protect children, and another $20 million for breach of duty of care.
      links:
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
       
    • By Nicole
      EDMONTON — An Alberta family allegedly kidnapped by a group of naked neighbours, who may have unknowingly drank some hallucinogenic tea, say it was a frightening experience.
      And the family members say until they learn more facts about what happened, they don't know how to feel about the ordeal.
      "We just don't have enough information," said one family member, who asked not to be named. "We have no answers as to whether anything was purposely taken or not purposely taken."
      The family members were reluctant to share their experience because of the ongoing court case, but they told The Canadian Press they know the accused as neighbours. They are all members of the same Jehovah's Witnesses church.
      When one of the female accused showed up at the family's home in Leduc County south of Edmonton on Monday morning, clothed and acting frantic, they thought there must be an emergency.
      But the family said with her were four other people who were naked and the family was forced outside and into a BMW. The man was allegedly put in the trunk and his daughter and her baby in the car with the others.
      While the car was being driven, the family said the man managed to jump out of the trunk. As the car slowed, the woman and her baby then managed to get away.
      The man, woman and child were then picked up by a passerby in his truck, but the truck was allegedly rammed by the car.
      RCMP have said that when they arrived at the scene of the crash, they took five people into custody. Three adults, a man and two women, are facing charges of kidnapping, resisting arrest and mischief and are to next appear in court Nov. 30.
      Two teenage girls also in the car were released without charges.
      No one was injured.
      The father of the girls, ages 13 and 15, has said his daughters and their mother were having breakfast Monday morning with another couple when they decided to have some tea recently brought back from a trip overseas. The father said the tea was from India, but the family that was allegedly kidnapped said one of the accused had travelled earlier in the year to Thailand and South Korea.
      "It's absolutely crazy," said the father, who cannot be named due to a court publication ban protecting the identity of youths involved in the case.
      "It's a scary thought thinking, 'Oh, let's try this tea that we purchased.' And then all sit down thinking they're just going to have a nice morning and end up in that circumstance."
      He said the girls don't remember what happened.
      The Mounties have not said if they're investigating whether a hallucinogenic tea motivated the alleged crime but have said drugs and/or alcohol may have played a role.
      Chris Purdy, The Canadian Press

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By Nicole
      Barry W. Bussey: Last week, the Supreme Court was asked to do something courts never do: review the solely religious decision of a church
      On November 2, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to do something Canadian courts never do: review the solely religious decision of a church community. Until now, the courts have recoiled from getting involved in religious disputes—and for good reason.
      The case involves Randy Wall, who was dismissed from a Jehovah’s Witness church for failing to repent of his religious offences: getting drunk on two occasions and verbally abusing his wife. Wall’s appeal to another church entity was unsuccessful. He then appealed to a court of law by means of “judicial review,” on the grounds that the church had denied him a proper hearing. 
      In Canadian law, in a process known as “judicial review,” a person can ask a court to “review” (i.e. hear) whether the decision of a “public actor” (such as a government licensing agency) was unfairly decided. Courts rarely review decisions of “private actors” (such as a church); they generally do so only if a private actor’s decision engages property or civil rights. In Wall’s case, the court had to determine whether the Jehovah’s Witness church’s decision involved property or contractual rights, which would then enable the court to review the church’s decision.
      "The church argued it was a private religious body, not a public body"
      The church argued it was a private religious body, not a public body, and that its decision did not affect Wall’s property or contractual rights. It also argued that its disciplinary procedure was a religious process involving prayer and scripture reading aimed at reconciling the relationship between Wall and the church. The lower courts both held that religious decisions can be reviewed by courts to determine whether a church gave a fair hearing, even if no property or contractual rights were engaged. However, both courts were also of the view that property rights were an issue in the case. The Supreme Court of Canada must now decide whether those courts were right. The Supreme Court reserved judgment after last week’s hearing; we can expect its decision early in the new year.
      Courts like to “fix things.” They naturally want to find resolutions to disputes; this is what they exist to do. However, courts have historically avoided getting involved in religious cases, recognizing that they lack the expertise and authority to settle religious disagreements. They handle legal cases, such as contractual disputes, but not religious cases that raise metaphysical truths, such as the definition of God.
      Wall argued his case did involve a “property right,” because his dismissal from his church meant the church members were no longer willing to do business with him. As a real estate agent, 50 per cent of his clientele were Jehovah’s Witnesses. His business folded from the loss of their support. He says there is a direct line of causation between his loss of church membership and business loss. It’s likely the case that one caused the other, but that doesn’t mean Wall’s claim is a legally enforceable property right. 
      "A church member is not required to patronize the business of a former church member"
      The reality is, Wall chose to limit his business to Jehovah’s Witnesses and took a personal risk in doing so. The church did not tell him to do so, and certainly there is no known legal principle that says a church is responsible for the economic losses that might flow from a loss of membership. A church member is not required to patronize the business of a former member. In the same way, we would not expect a former husband to maintain business with his ex-wife’s family.
      At last week’s hearing, Wall’s legal counsel tried to persuade the court that, if there are no grounds under Canadian law for the court to interfere in purely religious matters, the court should then consider adopting U.K. law, which does allow this type of review. “Good luck!” Justice Rosalie Abella quipped, prompting everyone to burst into laughter.
      That exchange suggested the court was not persuaded that it is time to change the law to allow courts to get tangled up in reviewing decisions of religious bodies. That would be a good thing, as courts don’t have the moral or legal authority or doctrinal expertise to decide such matters.
      This hearing occurred around the time of the 500-year anniversary of Martin Luther’s nailing of his 95 Theses to a church door in Wittenberg, Germany. If we have learned anything since then, it’s that the law does not need to apply to every nook and cranny of our lives – especially our religious affairs.
      Barry W. Bussey is Director Legal Affairs at the Canadian Council of Christian Charities. He blogs at lawandreligion.org
       

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
  • Popular Now

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Have the crows bring her an extra sandwich and more ink for her pen.
    • As predicted in the Scriptures, I imagine that confidence in a certain guide will gradually decrease, more and more.
      So writing phrases like "Strange instructions could come" means saying "you always obey".
      Moreover, "closing in the congregations" is a play of words because it does not mean "closing in the Halls of the Kingdom". If the people of God will be scattered all over the world until the last moment, no specific instruction will be given (in fact, needs and situations vary from country to country). So cite Isaiah by applying "inner rooms" to congregations can mean everything and nothing.
      If you lock yourself in a Kingdom Hall and this Kingdom Hall is destroyed, it means "you did not understand the instructions."
      Closure to the congregation, on the other hand, is a way to say "You have to trust in Jehovah."
      If something bad happens, it means you did not trust Jehovah. Instead, the Bible explains that the people of God will be gathered (from all over the world) to a specific spot on Earth just before Armageddon. In this case the instructions (which may concern first aid, hygiene, food sharing and other things) will be clear and simple. They will not be strange. But this information is "apostasy" is not it?
      So very few will pay attention.
      Alternatively, wait for these "strange" instructions.
      It will be very reasonable to think that people who are resident all over the world, with different geographies, different climates, different needs, and isolated siblings far from everyone and everyone, will receive "specific instructions".
      Let's say "close in the congregations" and so we are sure we will not go wrong (if something goes wrong, the fault is what you did not trust in Jehovah). Think about Israel's history and how it was saved from Egypt, or about Lot and how it was saved from Sodom and Gomorrah.
      Think of the words "for our education" - Romans 15: 4
      Reflect on the words "fully prepared" - 2 Timothy 3:16, 17
      Perhaps the instructions to survive Armageddon (perhaps) are already written in the Bible.
    • Two links are added, sourcing everything. The only "projection" of mine that remains is the Special Victims Unit, which I admit is subjective. is anyone in a tizzy over that? Let him or her come here and defend the show if they are.
    • I  TRY  IT  TMW.  AND  TELL  YOU !!    NOW  BED - TIME >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank  you  my  dear  Brother   haha,  I  love  that  new  smiley !  SO  sweet...
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      44,164
    • Total Posts
      72,221
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      13,255
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    BUKDOS
    Joined